The Problematic Legacy of "Gone With the Wind"

Scene from Gone With the Wind

Earlier this week, the new streaming service HBO Max received scrutiny when they decided to pull Gone With the Wind. The reason was inspired by an op-ed piece written by John Ridley (screenwriter of 12 Years a Slave) printed in the Los Angeles Times, encouraging them to notice how its themes would have a negative impact on the current political climate. This has lead to many debates, including whether the film is dated or even relevant. To be honest, it's a difficult call that is worthy of hearing the pros and cons for, but what is ultimately clear is the need to recontextualize its place in the modern conversation. Should it be removed? No, though the context through which it's discussed should be greatly changed if we plan to get anywhere in this debate. 

As someone who studies Oscar history for fun, Gone With the Wind is one of those films that's impossible to ignore. Its place in film history is very important, serving as the pinnacle of early Hollywood productions, doing plenty to revolutionize concepts like shooting in color, elaborate sets, and the very idea of what an epic is. Love or hate it, the mythology of making this movie is crucial to how the era was seen, where a producer's name was more important than any director or screenwriter attached the project. As a figure, David O. Selznick's name is important to film history and the way he assembled this film is an astounding achievement. I'd even argue that the way that Margaret Mitchell wrote the story while jamming pages into manilla envelopes that she hid in her couch are fascinating stories.

But here's the thing: it's still a film that sympathizes an aspect of American history that is largely negative. It romanticizes the Antebellum South, a call to a bygone era where slavery was still legal and where waving the Confederate flag was seen as a harmless way of admitting that you were afraid of black people having any agency whatsoever. This isn't a debate targeted strictly at Gone With the Wind, but it's a big target because of its cultural impact in just about every field. It isn't just its work as a technical feat. It's a story revered by millions. Adjusted for inflation, it's the highest-grossing movie in history. It was a film that broke Academy Award records, including making Hattie McDaniel the first African American to win an Oscar (nevermind that it was for playing the negative mammy stereotype for its own set of complicated reasons). You can argue anything beyond this, but it's a piece of film history.

If that's all that we were dealing with, the story would be different. The acceptance that it was a significant film in the evolution of the medium is a given. However, it's clear that the film being pulled from HBO Max has a whole host of different issues. The most noteworthy is the regressive view of black characters, who all appear as slaves or servants. Even if one could argue that McDaniels' Mammy has the most reason of any character in the story, she's still subserviant to her white co-stars. In another scene Butterfly McQueen is seen being physically abused by Vivien Leigh. It may not seem like the most appalling depiction compared to more problematic films like The Birth of a Nation (hey, at least the Black characters are played by Black people and aren't total buffoons), but by neutering the view of racism it makes it somehow more acceptable, that it can be held up as this defense like "See? The Antebellum South wasn't THAT bad!"

Which is the problem. Without any context, this film glorifies a view of the world that is damaging. I do believe that art has the power to shift the way we see history. Figures' whole reputaiton can shift based on whether a movie paints them as heroes or villains. It's the art of the moving image, and for so long the view of the Antebellum South has been Gone With the Wind: one which isn't overtly critical. It's true that you could read it as a study of holding onto these ideas as foolish, but that doesn't make its depiction any less smudged. Without telling the audience to see Scarlett O'Hara as this flawed, vindictive character (which even then creates a whole host of different debates on interpretation), it becomes difficult to not see the constant love as some form of endorsement.

This isn't a new debate, but one that feels relevant as America once again debates its cultural value with Confederate imagery. There are currently protests in relation to the death of George Floyd and Breona Taylor, creating a discussion on the value of the police force and breaking the trend of systemic racism in America. To many, the Confederate iconography is seen as embracing racism because, well, it does. The figures associated with this are harmful and wanted the oppression of Black Americans. They fought a whole war about that. There is clearly a struggle for a contingent of society to see the problem with embracing this era of American history. While there has been plenty of change for the better (NASCAR banning the Confederate flag), the discussion over why the symbol is one of hatred and not cultural identity (unless your cultural identity is racist) is still one that needs to be more unified. 

Take for instance the legacy of Birth of a Nation. As explored recently in the Spike Lee film BlacKkKlansman, the film had the power to reignite The KKK and spark hate crimes nationwide. Art has the power to provoke and influence group mentality. It isn't just simple media. These stories reaffirm ideas that the public holds subconsciously, and the fact that it inspired hate crimes 60+ years after its release, it proves that attitudes still need to shift. Sure, Gone With the Wind doesn't have any moment as troubling as blackface actors acting like savages, but it's still a story whose source material includes a whole subplot where Ashley Wilkes is the leader of the local Klansman branch. Even if the film takes a more apolitical approach to these ideas, it still doesn't outright chastise it. Without any shift in how the film has been seen, it allows the more problematic elements of the Antebellum South to be overlooked.

That is why the idea of HBO Max pulling the film makes sense. It isn't going to be permanently gone. There are talks that it will return with disclaimers and discussion placed around it of why the film is significant, but is still a product of its time that needs to be considered as such. There should be some recognition of its place in history as a work of cinematic art as well as a depiction of Civil War era melodramas that had a profound impact on the medium. Why was it that this film remained so popular? 

To erase the film is difficult for a variety of reasons. It's just too big at this point. But there is a reason that in 2014, when the film was celebrating its 75th anniversary, it didn't get any special segment  at the Oscars. There was one for The Wizard of Oz, but Gone With the Wind was absent in part because it was an acknowledgment that the views expressed in it should no longer be celebrated. It's also because that was the year that 12 Years a Slave won, leading host Ellen Degeneres to make the joke that if anyone voted against it, they were racist. 

It's okay to admit that the times have changed, that our views have progressed with time. This isn't a debate on how much you enjoy the film, or if it's a very dated melodrama. This is one about what its views on Confederate culture are saying about society if they're still accepted. Following the election of President Obama, it felt like the conversation took a significant shift, where Black narratives were allowed to be more complex. 12 Years a Slave was groundbreaking in that it painted slavery for the first time as something traumatic and horrible, not allowing any empathetic misreading to take place. Other simpler stories like The Butler, 42, and Hidden Figures showed studio dramas with an agency and complexity on racial relations in history that was healthy, reflecting cinema having a debate on how it wanted to represent America's past in the modern era.

While recent times have proven that things still have a lot that needs to be changed, the discussion around American identity has grown significantly in the past decade, and has only highlighted how simple-minded Gone With the Wind was about its values. It was a simple love story, and one that has captivated audiences for almost 80 years. There's so much cultural value that you can understand why people talk about it, even if modern generations are quicker to decry it as a racist piece of propaganda. It's also a revered film to this day, where it manages to work its magic even unintentionally on audiences who should be opposed to its message. That's the power of cinema. It has the power to persuade or create escapism. After all, if Quentin Tarantino can rewrite history to fit his vision, why should we deny how Selznick and Mitchell saw their own recent past?

I don't have any answer other than this film clearly needs to have more emphasis on context. It shouldn't take the route that Disney took by removing Song of the South from its availability, making it exoticized and eager eyes look for it. In a lot of ways, Gone With the Wind is a much more competent film anyway, and its brief time off of HBO Max gave it enough press to make it a best seller again on Amazon. Its Oscar track record is one that deserves to be studied for how Hollywood saw epics back then. Having it available allows it to be discussed, though considering that most aren't likely to see it with that pretext in place about its historical relevance and problems, it may be difficult to pull off. Those who love the film will continue shoving their fingers in their ears and ignore the progressive mentality that art has an impact on social views and that they should just let them watch this silly melodrama.

From my personal experience, no piece of art is perfect and I think there is something to its subjective nature that is impossible for most to shake. The further into the past that you go, the more problems you are likely to find in something. Should you ignore the medium just because of their bad hiring practices, or should you see how it lead to different changes? Maybe instead of supporting problematic films like Gone With the Wind, explore how The Cabin in the Sky depicted an All-Black musical featuring Louis Armstrong. There are ways to shift the conversation, and I think there's more value in adding them to the bigger context. 

Even if you can't change much opinion on Gone With the Wind, you can try and triumph other voices that have gone ignored in the decades since. Reflect that there are alternatives to what we know and chart the evolution of cinema. Understand how McDaniels played Mammy in large part because she wasn't attractive enough to play other roles. Study how Leslie Howard played Ashley solely so he could get funding for his film Pygmalion. There are details that show this isn't just some celebration, but a series of compromises that connect to other aspects of Hollywood history that are probably less problematic. This just happened to be a surefire hit that came to scar generations with a false view of a time long gone, before documentaries could ever film them and provide a realistic context.

More importantly, I want you to listen to those who are opposing the film entirely because they deserve to be heard. Why is the film racist? While I am coming from a white perspective (and one who has spent years studying its history), there are Black voices with more informed views on the subject than me.I can look at it from a historical standpoint and notice how art impacts our social views, but I can't speak to how it's impacted me directly. I can mention that I knew a theater that played it bi-annually to sold-out shows, but I can't speak for how those people in that auditorium are seeing it, whether as base entertainment or something more complex and problematic.

There is a discussion that needs to be had, and not one that needs to be outright dismissed. Unlike tossing Confederate statues into the river (which I say go for it), it's not endorsing Gone With the Wind to have a debate over its merits. All art has to be questioned at some point because it's a depiction of a moment that's passed us by. Not everything was meant to hold up forever, and frankly it's interesting to see how radically the opinion on this perceived classic has shifted in the decade along with the changing views on race relations depicted in film. Everything has a purpose in this debate, and it's only when we listen that any change can be made.